You haven't read enough of his posts. He's dead serious, but doesn't know how to write properly so, his point is misconstrued. Yes, it will offend some, but there is a way to write about Hitler's "innovations" without sounding like you are sucking the Nazi's collective dicks.

Arguing with you is always a learning experience. I chose not to become educated, this time. Notice, I only followed derails I felt I could build a semantic or otherwise factual argument around.

Shut the **** up, you are not learning jack **** nor are you trying to improve anything. Why try to lie to anyone on here? Do you really think you can bullshit a bullshitter? Want my advice? Get the **** out of NC and move north of Virginia, that's where you fucking belong just for perpetuating the myth that all Southerners are ignorant asses. It's not like you are training in anything other than ice pack do anyways.

Shut the **** up, you are not learning jack **** nor are you trying to improve anything. Why try to lie to anyone on here? Do you really think you can bullshit a bullshitter? Want my advice? Get the **** out of NC and move north of Virginia, that's where you fucking belong just for perpetuating the myth that all Southerners are ignorant asses. It's not like you are training in anything other than ice pack do anyways.

itwasntme didn't change his original point between the first and second sentence of his first pro-Hitler paragraph,

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.
Never did i claim such, put down the straw already.
Your post that i responded to came four days and nearly 100 posts later.
So you and i both had the benefit of seeing the context of the conversation; thus my "changed his stance numerous times".
"Whole of" is a strawman on your part.
I was responding to "initial issue", and quoted you in fact.

so your "correcting" me as to what his original position was by ignoring the second sentence and arbitrarily choosing a less plausible interpretation of the first sentence was a piece of fucktardedness on your part, Chen.

No the content of the initial point is not up for debate, i quoted it.
Neither is the chronology, so stop lying.
You are attributing some logic and structure to itwasn'tme's posts, that is your failure.

There is (in any relevant sense) no chronological separation between the first and second sentences of the same paragraph. You are being a dipshit, not correcting me or clarifying any chronology.

Again, first and second sentence is your diversion.
The Hitler's morality argument came after the Hitler should be commended argument.
It's there in black and white, unless you'd like to continue to be itwasn'tme's champion and extrapolate a logical sequence when there is none.

Your statement of Azatdawn's argument was garbled and semi-coherent. I was being generous when I described it as a poor thumbnail sketch of his position.

Hahahaha, you call this garbled?

You are addressing Azatdawn's argument then.

Dude, you really need to stfu about reading comprehension.
You cannot even see the distinction between itwasn'tme's argumentS, and Azatdawn's argumenT, even when it's quote blocked for you.

You didn't correct me on anything, since your first "correction" was full of dubious interpretation and your second was very badly expressed and irrelevant, since I was disagreeing with *both* of their positions.

Please refer to that last paragraph of yours below and the s/v disagreement; i corrected you on numerous things including chronology, content and even your little s/v disagreement.
Stop lying.

Then you made some pinheaded comment about my argument that implied that I agreed with Azatdawn's position.

Quote me doing so, liar.
I said you were attributing Azatdawns argument(and in fact his reasoning) to itwasn'tme.(Edit, more accurately you conflated itwasn'tme's original point, with his subsequent "rebuttal" to Azatdawn's argument.)
The quote is right up there.^

Ordinarily, your posts are intelligent and, whether I agree with you or not, worth reading. The posts you've made replying to me in this thread have been sloppy and gratuitously insulting.

Aww, Chuckie is butt-hurt.

Good catch on "given" vs. "gave." My shame at missing that when I changed that sentence will weigh upon me, but I will try to carry on.

I have no doubt you will persevere, it is but the least of your failings in this thread.

If you want your word to weigh more than mine, or anybody else, aside from Chuck, provide sources. Otherwise take your advice and STFU. ... I have, however, seen that citizens in fact DID recieve their car they had payed into.

Oh really? That would make you a bit older than your picture makes you out to be.... how else would you be able to SEE.
Oh and while you are at it, I have a link here, that does not go too much into the details about the planing of the car, but I will ad something...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

This factory had only produced a handful of cars by the time war started in 1939. None were actually delivered to any holder of the completed saving stamp books, though one Type 1 Cabriolet was presented to Hitler on 20 April 1938 (his 49th birthday).

As I said, not talking about the plans of producing the car but then... you are wrong... let me drive that home further....